Raj Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76060 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-392 Year-2019 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Raj Kumar Paswan S/o Manva Paswan @ Mana Paswan Resident of VillagePakhanaha Sriram, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. M.K. Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.392 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.
The FIR has been lodged by one Pankaj Kumar that his father has been kidnapped and he has given the details of mobile number including the details of his father. During investigation, the mobile, which was kept by him, was found from the pocket of accused Niranjan Kumar, who during interrogation has accepted his involvement in the commission of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76060 of 2019(7) dt.23-11-2020 2/2 crime with the present petitioner. The details has been given that in what manner the action has been executed and on his statement recovery of motorcycle of the deceased including three wheeler over which the dead body was disposed of after commission of crime including the pant in which blood of deceased was smeared were recovered. It appears that in order to take the money from the businessman, the entire crime was committed and the dead body was disposed of.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and due to enmity with the co-accused Niranjan Kumar, who is muscleman of that area, he has wrongly been framed, but this Court has asked a question to counsel for the petitioner that in order to prove the enmity whether any case has been lodged, but he has not given any proof of enmity. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. (Shivaji Pandey, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T